Chennai Court December 1923 Judgments
S.S. Ramudu Ayyar and anr. Vs. N.K. Ramayyar and Bros. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad221
1. In this case plaintiffs entered into a contract to sail 60 bales of yarn of various counts to defendants. Exhibit A dated 21st August, 1918, is The first written record of the contract and in respect of the count of 50's with which we are mainly concerned, it was agreed that 30 bales should be supplied at Rs. 16-12 0 per bundle of 5 lbs. On 23rd August, 1918, plaintiffs wrote another letter, Exhibit C, stating that the bales sold were those purchased from Rayalu Aiyar Nagasami Iyer & Co., which the latter were buying from the Mills at Rs. 14 per bundle.2. These two letters were accepted by defendants in Exhibit B and we may take the three documents together as embodying the terms of the contract. Plaintiffs delivered 28 bales, including 7 bales of count No. 50, between 9th September, 1918 and 14th October, 1918. The first 3 bales of 50's wore paid for in full after deducting the advance paid in respect of thorn. All the bales were loft in defendant's godown and no objection was take...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sundaram Mudaliar Vs. C. Muthuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad908
Schwabe, C.J.1. In my judgment, the order made in this case was wrong, apart altogether from the question, whether there was any power, under the circumstances of the case, to make an order under Order 20, Rule 11(1) in that the decree was passed under the Rules by the Deputy Registrar on December the 11th and this order was made by Devadoss, J., several days later. For I do not think it right for the Judge, upon the making of a decree, to stay the execution of it unconditionally, without very much better cause being shown by the defendant than that his property is tied up and that he cannot lay his hands upon it for the moment. That may be a ground for staying execution conditionally, oh the judgment-creditor being in some way secured. In my view, it is not correct, under these circumstances to stay execution unconditionally, or by imposing simply a condition as to giving security for a small amount for defendant's appearance, in six months' time as was done in this case. But it is su...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Ramudu Ayyar and anr. Vs. N.K. Ramayyar and Brothers, by their Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1051
1. In this case plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell 60 bales of yarn of various counts to defendants. Ex. A, dated 21st August 1918, is the first written record of the contract and in respect of the count of 50's with which we are mainly concerned, it was agreed that 30 bales should be supplied at Rs. 16-12-0 per bundle of 5 lbs. On 23rd August 1918 plaintiffs wrote another letter (Ex. C.) stating that the bales sold were those purchased from Rayalu Aiyar Nagasami Iyer and Co., which the latter were buying from the Mills at Rs. 14 per bundle. These two letters were accepted by defendants in Ex. B, and we may take the three documents together as embodying the terms of the contract. Plaintiffs delivered 28 bales, including 7 bales of count No. 50, between 9th September 1918 and 14th October 1918. The first 3 bales of 50's were paid for in full after deducting the advance paid in respect of them. All the bales were left in defendants's godown and no objection was taken until 19th D...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tadi Somu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad640; (1924)46MLJ456
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case accused 1 and 3 were convicted by the 1st class Magistrate of Yellamanchilli of forgery for the purpose of cheating (S. 468 Indian Penal Code), and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court--also 1st accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 300 with 3 months' rigorous imprisonment in default, and 3rd accused was fined Rs. 150 with two months' rigorous imprisonment in default. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam confirmed the conviction and sentences. The case was' taken up in revision by Devadoss, J., on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The case came on for hearing on 27-9-1923 before Krishnan, J., who held that the conviction was correct but enhanced the sentences on each accused to six months' rigorous imprisonment retaining the sentence of fine. Mr. T. S. Anantaraman, Vakil for 1st accused, stated he had no instructions and 1st accused did not appear in person. 3rd accused appeared neither in per...
Tag this Judgment!Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad494; 79Ind.Cas.144; (1924)46MLJ415
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The respondent obtained an order for attachment before judgment of certain immoveable property of the judgment-debtor. The petitioner having obtained a decree ex parte against the same judgment-debtor, it was set aside on the latter's application on security being given to the petitioner, and as security, a charge was given over the property attached by the respondent. In due course the respondent obtained a decree as also did the petitioner, and there were other decrees against the same judgment-debtor by other persons. The respondent took out an execution petition in 1916, which came before the Court on several occasions, being adjourned from time to time for the respondent to file the necessary papers, which included an encumbrance certificate. These' papers not having been produced, the petition was on the 29th of August 1916 adjourned to the 19th September next for filing the papers, and on that date, the papers not having been filed, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. K. Ramachandraiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad731; 79Ind.Cas.92
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. These are appeals from the decrees of the city Civil Court for ejectment and mesne profits. The plaintiff is a lessee from the trustees of a temple of the lands in question which have been sub-let to the defendants in smaller portions. Several grounds of appeal were raised in the notice of appeal, but they have all been abandoned before us except one ground, namely, that the amount awarded for mesne profits was awarded without any evidence before the Court to justify the amount. The plaintiff had alleged in his plaint that the proper rent of the land is so much. The defendants in their written statements had not admitted that that figure was correct. Without hearing any evidence, the learned Judge accepted the figure as given in the plaint. In my judgment there was no justification for that, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he ought to have taken not that figure but the figure of the rent actually being paid by the various defendants. We are...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tadisomu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.850
Odgers, J.1. In this case accused Nos. 1 and 3 were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Yellamanchilli of forgery for the purpose of cheating (Section 468, Indian Penal Code) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court also 1st accused was ordered, to pay a fine of Rs. 300 with three months rigorous imprisonment in default, and 3rd accused was fined Rs. 150 with two months rigorous, imprisonment in default. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam confirmed the convictions and sentences. The case was taken up in revision by Devadoss, J., on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The case came on for hearing on 27th September 1923 before Krishnan, J., who held that the conviction was correct but enhanced the sentences on each accused to six months rigorous imprisonment retaining the sentences of line. Mr. T.S. Anantharaman Vakil for the 1st accused stated that he had no instructions and 1st accused did not appear in person. Third ac...
Tag this Judgment!Thavasamuthu Nadar Vs. Balaguruswamy Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad137; 79Ind.Cas.658
ORDER1. In my judgment, the injunction applied for ought to have been granted as prayed and must be granted pending the appeal. The principle is a principle of general application that, where a business of any kind is being wound up by the Court or otherwise, the business being the property of more than one person carried on as partners, co-owners, members of a joint family, or, otherwise during the winding up persons who were the members of the concern are not allowed to enter into a competition so as to interfere with the successful winding up of the concern.2. That is the principle of the English law to be found enunciated in Clegg v. Fishwick (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 294, and the leading case of Fox Mackreth, Pitt v. Macherth (1789-91) 2 Cox. 158 and it is fully discussed in Lindley on Partnership, p. 370, and is recognised in Sections 88 and 90 of the Indian Trusts Act. In this case the joint family owned, among other things, a very large Abkari business and, as part of that business, t...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Malkajigunda and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad212
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs bring this suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against seven defendants and pray for the removal of the defendants from management, for the appointment of new trustees, for an account from the defendants and for the settlement of a scheme. In the plaint it is stated that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the 'present trustees' of the plaint temple and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the Nattamaikars who are entrusted with collecting money due to the temple; and, although defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are not specifically described in the plaint as trustees, it is clear from the language of the plaint that the allegation is that they have been in management of the trust and should be removed on account of their misappropriation of The temple funds.2. When the case came on for trial The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 and 7 agreed upon a schedule which was approved of by the Court, but defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were ex parte to this hearing. A preliminary decree...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Nattamai Malkajigunda and ors. Vs. Peria Nattamai Malkaji Gumda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.950
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs bring this suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Prooedure against Seven defendants and pray for the removal of the defendants from management, for the appointment of new trustees, for an an account from the defendants and for the settlement of a scheme. In the plaint it is stated that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the 'present trustees' of the plaint temple and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the Nattamaikars who are entrusted with collecting money due to the temple; and, although defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are not specifically desoribed in the plaint as trustees, it is clear from the language of the plaint that the allegation is that they have been in management of the trust and should be removed on account of their misappropriation of the temple funds.2. When the case came on for trial, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 and 7 agreed upon a schedule which was approved of by the Court, but defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were ex parte at this hearing. A preliminary d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »